Daily Archives: October 12, 2014

Beware of Policies and Legislation Based on the Generational Accounting Scam

New Economic Perspectives has the article Beware of Policies and Legislation Based on the Generational Accounting Scam.

…the US has policy space to cope with recessions and depressions that many nations, including the nations of the Eurozone don’t have. Passing generational accounting-based legislation will only hamstring the US in using the policy space given us by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers to rebuild a rapidly declining America.

There is so much to do! We must not be prevented from doing it by a network of deficit terrorist fiscal legislation.
In short, the w of generational accounting-based legislation supporters is not about sweetness, and light, and reasonableness and harmony, and the American people coming together to act “responsibly.” Instead, it is about the kind of noxious bipartisanship that aligns a group of high-placed elites in a conspiracy against what the American people have repeatedly said they really want: full employment and strengthened social safety net programs.
Real Fiscal Responsibility can only be achieved if we defeat any and all generational accounting-based legislation. We must do that to safeguard the Federal Government fiscal policy space we will need if we’re going to recapture America for the 99% and reduce the growing inequality that austerity in Government spending has created among us.

Please do not foster “bipartisanship” that promotes the agenda of the network of deficit terrorists. This kind of terrorism is much more threatening than anything ISIS can throw our way.

A Picture Worth 1000 Words: A Sighting from the McJobs Market

Naked Capitalism has the post A Picture Worth 1000 Words: A Sighting from the McJobs Market.

…employers are following the lead of Obama, who last year touted Amazon warehouse jobs that paid below living wage levels as “middle class jobs.” With the President subtly jawboning wage expectations down, why shouldn’t employers see how far they can get with bottom fishing?

….The message from Obama is clear: Americans are now expected to celebrate when companies are willing to pay at or not much above a living wage [for a single person]. As long as you pay enough that the workers don’t wind up having to seek public assistance in the form of food stamps or emergency rooms for medical care, you’ll now be promoted as creating better conditions for Americans. That’s true as long as you remember that the Americans that benefit from this grinding down of ordinary citizens are Obama’s backers and other members of the elite.

So the questions I ask again,

Should we be looking for someone to run for the nomination for President in 2016 from the Democratic party who is  further  to the political right than President Obama?  Are we looking for a next President who will coddle the very oligarchs who want to grind us into the ground?

If you don’t think our next President should be the one I described above, what are you doing to make sure an unreformed Hillary Clinton does not get the nomination?  Do you think you should even bother to tell Hillary that the direction she is going in is not the one we need to be following?

Do you think there will be much middle class left if you wait until 2024 to fight for the type of President that we desperately need?

I’d truly like to get a sense of what progressive people are thinking if they favor Hillary Clinton over Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren Interview with Salon Magazine

Salon Magazine has the interview they headline as EXCLUSIVE: Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over”

Nancy Weinberg posted a link to this article on her Facebook page. One comment on her post was as follows:

Heidi Fox I don’t want her to run for president. We need her in the Senate!

This is the kind of response that drives me up a tree. Here is my response in turn.

Steve Greenberg

According to Elizabeth Warren:
> “We have the opportunity. The moment is upon us.”
> We push back hard enough, we’re pushing for
> America’s agenda. Not an agenda to help a small
> group of people, an agenda to build a future for this
> country. And I believe we win. I believe it.

I sure would like to believe this, but at the moment I am still an agnostic. I am still fighting though.

However, I feel that people who do not want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination are giving Hillary a free pass to triangulate with the Republicans.

If you just give the nomination away to the Wall Street choice for President, what do you think you will gain from that? Is the fight just over? Or do you think we can start to fight some other time? How bad does it have to get, before you decide it is time to fight?

Do you think we should put any pressure on the Democratic Party to nominate for President someone on the people’s side instead of Wall Street’s side? If you think we should, how exactly do you propose to put on that pressure?